03-02-2004, 06:31 PM
Hi,
In the past, the "laws" of a group were often the whims of an individual or the prejudices of the group. What was "legal" often depended on the political power or the charisma of the accused individual. Henry II got away with many things that were far worse than any forced his son, John, to grant Magna Carta.
The concept of clearly defined laws, formally agreed to and uniformly enforced is a very modern concept. However the question of how those laws are to be derived remains unanswered. In the past, those laws were often simply codified versions of the prejudices, the superstitions, and the customs of the tribe involved. The concepts of the rights of individuals arising during the Enlightenment opened the door a crack towards the establishment of what laws were just and what laws weren't. It was the starting step on the journey to a rational system of laws.
In a sense, these laws were the affirmation of the power of the people. Unlike traditional laws which told the ruled how to behave, these laws told the rulers. And, yes, even so called "democracies" have rulers, as anyone who has dealt with a civil servant (RAH dubs them "civil masters", but I disagree finding few of them "civil") knows full well.
So, while we have individually named rights, we still lack an overarching concept of "rights". We still lack a method, a theory, a guideline to ensure that the laws passed are fair and equitable. We need laws governing which laws should exist and which laws should not.
I reject the local argument you present. While it was true in a three mile an hour world, I do not believe that it holds when a person can travel from Rome to Tokyo in a quarter of the time it took to go from Rome to Florence two centuries earlier. We are still saddled with the rules of a world where each community is, effectively, isolated in a world where nearly every community is connected. Perhaps the community of which we are all members has expanded faster than the ability for many individuals to acknowledge that expansion. But, just as we do not let the Luddites set the pace for our technological advancement, neither should we allow the isolationists set the pace for our social advancement. Neither group wishes to acknowledge that time brings progress and what was might not be what needs to be.
As to your concerns that we will revert, consider that historically it is those who wished to move into the future who gave rise to increased freedoms. The first step to regression is to stop progression. The first step to losing all rights is to deny them to select groups. The second step is to surrender some for apparent advantage. I wonder what the third step will be and when we'll take it.
--Pete
In the past, the "laws" of a group were often the whims of an individual or the prejudices of the group. What was "legal" often depended on the political power or the charisma of the accused individual. Henry II got away with many things that were far worse than any forced his son, John, to grant Magna Carta.
The concept of clearly defined laws, formally agreed to and uniformly enforced is a very modern concept. However the question of how those laws are to be derived remains unanswered. In the past, those laws were often simply codified versions of the prejudices, the superstitions, and the customs of the tribe involved. The concepts of the rights of individuals arising during the Enlightenment opened the door a crack towards the establishment of what laws were just and what laws weren't. It was the starting step on the journey to a rational system of laws.
In a sense, these laws were the affirmation of the power of the people. Unlike traditional laws which told the ruled how to behave, these laws told the rulers. And, yes, even so called "democracies" have rulers, as anyone who has dealt with a civil servant (RAH dubs them "civil masters", but I disagree finding few of them "civil") knows full well.
So, while we have individually named rights, we still lack an overarching concept of "rights". We still lack a method, a theory, a guideline to ensure that the laws passed are fair and equitable. We need laws governing which laws should exist and which laws should not.
I reject the local argument you present. While it was true in a three mile an hour world, I do not believe that it holds when a person can travel from Rome to Tokyo in a quarter of the time it took to go from Rome to Florence two centuries earlier. We are still saddled with the rules of a world where each community is, effectively, isolated in a world where nearly every community is connected. Perhaps the community of which we are all members has expanded faster than the ability for many individuals to acknowledge that expansion. But, just as we do not let the Luddites set the pace for our technological advancement, neither should we allow the isolationists set the pace for our social advancement. Neither group wishes to acknowledge that time brings progress and what was might not be what needs to be.
As to your concerns that we will revert, consider that historically it is those who wished to move into the future who gave rise to increased freedoms. The first step to regression is to stop progression. The first step to losing all rights is to deny them to select groups. The second step is to surrender some for apparent advantage. I wonder what the third step will be and when we'll take it.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?